The Bible (a discussion)

Given how much of the "internal validity" is actually "interpretation" (i'll use a polite term) based upon your preferred exegesis, and how greatly the claim is affected by your insistence on your terms and your definitions and your beliefs, i suggest that you delude yourself willfully. That you would offer the flood fairy tale as an example of a basis for faith is truly crucial--it would take faith because it is an otherwise preposterous story and insisting on it as valid is an insult to one's intelligence.

Yeah, I've seen posts about internal consistency... How can one expect a disparate collection of prophecies, hagiographies, genealogies and myths written by many different authors at different times to have hard-and-fast consistency is beyond me. E.g. the OT states in some places that there are several gods, and in others that there are only one. And then that he had a son who was also a god... Very consistent indeed.

I base my faith on the aggregate of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence I have observed and studied. I've never had a supernatural experience or revelation of any kind and, by that account, could easily discount the existence of a spirit realm. Yet, I believe it exists. I am certain it exists. I know it exists.

Can I demonstrate my belief with epistemological certainty? Sorry, you will have to work on that for yourself.

No, i will not have to work on any such thing. You can believe, you can trumpet your certainty, but you can't know any of this.

So Neo how would you describe it

For instance (1) what connection does it have to the physical world
(2) Is it a necessary accouterment of said world; that is, does it arise spontaneously or does it have to be created and
(3) if so, when and by what agency and finally

(4) Is it of purely transcendental character or is it some blend of a dualistic absgtract/concrete sort

This should come as no surprise to you but I'm not the least bit interested in a conversation between Jesus and Pilate, I was interested in your direct answer.

It's pretty clear that you either can't answer direct questions or you don't want to. So I guess we're done here.

Sorry, I should have said folks will have to work on that for themselves. I would never single you out for advice, though I do hold you in a sort of singular esteem.

Yeah. I can't see where I have much to add.

Not a narrow view at all. It's a minimum requirement for any document which has not yet achieved a status other than pure fantasy. If you can't see that, then you're lost.

I think we may now have entered into speculation on the Higgs field.

I'd say we entered the twilight zone long ago . . .

I guess I do have more. You miss my point. Scripture makes many references to history and science that have yet to be explained with certainty. You may consider some to be 'deal breakers'. I defer the ones I may have yet to resolve. But if the internal consistency is not there, I would not even bother to check external references; I'd just trash the entire thing. Perhaps only a matter of focus; but it makes sense to me.

The internal consistency is not there--you just won't admit that because believing is more important to you than critical review.

I'm not sure I would use the word "disturbed", Neo, but I am astounded that a seemingly intelligent person such as you actually guesses the story contained in the Bible to be an accurate reflection of how things are.

I would be astounded to think that you thought the sun and moon were "transported" across the sky in a chariot each day.

C'mon!

Even you can see this comment of yours to be absurd.

Even you can see the difference between "I believe it exists"...and "I am certain or I know it exists."

I'm not sure I can see the difference. Will you explain? The "C'mom!" suggests it's easy so explaining the difference should present no difficulties.

If you cannot see the difference, Spendius...then most likely no explanation will do. It is very easy to see.

ros was "done" long ago. His refusal to engage with all the members in a discussion is, as far as discussions go, done to a cinder. Anybody who can't see that is just as carbonized. Likewise for anybody who also engages is the same schoolgirlish antics.

As his participation is self-chosen he has immolated himself.

His use of the term "internal consistency" cannot possibly refer to the Bible. It has but one intention. It is to persuade any dimwits here that he knows what the term means, and is even expert on the subject. Not one iota of evidence is offered because, just like his refusal to engage other members in the discussion, he is not interested in evidence he wishes to be not interested in.

That he might have studied Thackery on the internal consistency of Henry Fielding's wonderful book Tom Jones, or followed Mary Lascelles' argument concerning Jane Austen's striving for internal consistency in Mansfield Park, is as likely, judging from the pidgin English in his posts, as Ernest Borgnine winning a fastest knitting competition.

He is simply trying to impress on us all that he something of an intellectual without his bothering to show any evidence on which we might base our opinion on a matter of such grave importance merely by typing a couple of words which compose an expression that means something he has not the first clue about.

I doubt he could get the bathroom decor into a state which wouldn't cause a fastidious lady to cringe.

Did you see that in your Bible, Frank? No wonder you have your perceptions all teeterboroed up.

Neo your response didn't come through in the last two replies